Trick 2

     This blog will be in response to Richard Goldstein's "Cartoon Wars".  If your interested in reading the article itself, you can find it here:   http://www.thenation.com/article/cartoon-wars


    While I had my own thoughts about how cartoons should be held, viewed, posted and interpreted, I have to say after reading this article that my views have in fact changed somewhat.  Normally I'm a very "live and let live" kind of person.  However, the author does raise some valid points, even if he didn't mean to while doing so.  So in this post, I'll start from the beginning and discuss it as we move along.  The first topic that grabbed my attention was an argument I've seen before.  In the discussion about Sponge Bob and Patrick, James Dobson was raising hell stating that the show promoted homo-sexuality to a younger audience.  I do believe that people should be able to make their own decisions, and ultimately the parent can just decide what their kids can and cannot watch, I do believe that the FCC should regulate the amount of "possible material" that is put into shows watched by a large portion of the younger audience.  At least to the point where the kids will be old enough to make their own decisions and not be swayed one way or the other.  


     The reason I say this is that cartoons are in fact, and I only thought of this after reading the article, more dangerous than say a blog or a newspaper article.  Images are power.  They are easy to read.  Easy to understand.  Another effect they have is leaving a lasting and powerful memory to the reader.  For the life of me, I could probably not remember any number of passages in any of my favorite books that I've read over and over, yet can easily recall tons of Garfield comics that I've read as a child.  So in this aspect, cartoons should be regulated to some degree and should be given more careful thought as to who might be the viewing audience.  


     Even when moving beyond animated cartoons or comics, images are powerful in many other aspects of  life.  What if a political cartoonist drew a cartoon of some politician you've never heard of.  But in this comic, the person is given a derogatory demeanor and look?  You don't even know this person, yet you would subconsciously not like this person the next time his name showed up in another article.   Images have power in that they can change the way you see, think or feel about a subject even if you've never covered it or know nothing about the topic.


     But does all this mean that everything should be censored?  In some ways it should be regulated, but there are several layers of security that could be put on this.  Its ultimately up to the artist of the cartoon to decide what to do and what not to do.  He has to balance it between what he feels right, what he believes in or what brings in more money.  All depending on how he see's his career.  His publisher is the next layer.  They get to determine if the quality of the cartoon is too offensive or safe and from there where to send the cartoon or comic to be shown to the public.  They have to weigh how their targeted audience will receive it.  After all, their audience is what keeps their company going.  Don't want to make them mad.  And lastly, its up to the reader or viewer in what they perceive or want to see.   In the case of children's cartoons, if their parents are ok with them watching something, then that's on them.  In the case of comics, if the reader doesn't like them, then they have the option of just ignoring future ones.  So ultimately I would have to say that further censoring would be unnecessary at this time.


     As for me, there are very few things I would censor.  Mostly I wouldn't as that would impede on someones freedom of speech, however, anything used for harmful propaganda, racism, or any kind of personal attack, I do believe should be censored.